Subject: Re: [babel] Draft BABEL Charter

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:12:20 +0000

On 6/1/16, 12:41 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Juliusz:

Hi!

>Hi Alvaro,
>
>> 1. Are there specifics of "earlier reviews" or the "comments presented
>>at the
>> BABEL BoF at IETF-95" that should be explicitly called out?
>
>...
>
>> 5. What does "multicast aspects of Babel" mean? (s/PIM/the PIM WG).
>
>Some people appear to believe that Babel works fine with PIM-SM as it
>stands.  Some other people appear to believe that it would be a good thing
>for Babel to be extended to carry a set of metrics specifically for
>multicast.  Yet other people would like to see Babel build multicast
>routing tables with no help from PIM.
>
>My personal opinion is that I'd love people to experiment with all three
>approaches as long as the base spec is not held up by multicast issues.
>I don't think it is worth mentioning in the charter, but you're the
>professional here.

My point with this comment (and #1 above) is really that I rather be
specific in the charter if there is something that we want the WG to work
on (or not), instead of relying on group history, or some e-mail somewhere
with a list.  If we can't be specific, then I don't think we should
mention it in the charter.

>
>> 6. Besides the specific call out to pim, are there other WGs with which
>>we
>> might need babel to coordinate with? Please call them out specifically.
>
>We're already interacting with Homenet (please see
>draft-chroboczek-homenet-babel-profile).  We hope to interact with the
>source-specific routing work, wherever that happens (it appears to
>currently be split between rtgwg and 6man, IMHO with too little
>interaction with mptcp).  We'll obviously need to interact with the
>security folks at some point.
>
>I have no idea if any of this is worth mentioning in the charter.

It is.  It not only jogs the WG memory, but it may attract the attention
of others as well.

Note that others have made the same comment in the IESG ballot:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-babel/ballot/

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 00:14:33 -0400

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I seem to have missed that it got demoted to a wiki item in the charter.
> > If everyone else prefers this in a wiki form, I can certainly contribute
> > to that, but my own thought was to write it up in draft form...
>
> I'd personally be more in favour of a draft, even if it doesn't get
> promoted.
> Wikia volant, scripta manent.
>

My experience is that it's really really hard to tell a WG that a WG draft
isn't going to progress
to an RFC.

The advantage of a wiki is that more folks can add experience and it's easy
to update.

 We could be clear in the charter that it's a draft that won't be published
as an RFC, but a wiki
with implementation experience that is kept up to date (while the WG is
active at least) seems
to me to be actually more useful.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:06:49 -0400

>  We could be clear in the charter that it's a draft that won't be published as an
> RFC, but a wiki with implementation experience that is kept up to date (while
> the WG is active at least) seems to me to be actually more useful.

It seems to me to be, as well... If, at some point in the future, we decide to push the information in the wiki as a draft for some reason, that can always be done... For now, I'd leave it as a wiki.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:45:55 +0200

> My experience is that it's really really hard to tell a WG that a WG
> draft isn't going to progress to an RFC.

Point taken.  OTOH, BCP-78 doesn't prevent the authors from using the text
in a peer-reviewed paper.

> The advantage of a wiki is that more folks can add experience and it's
> easy to update. 

Contrariwise, the advantage of an I-D is that it has a well-defined editor
who can ensure that the information makes sense.  Obviously, this can also
be a disadvantage, depending on the editor, but I rather trust Toke.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 22:42:09 +0200

Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> writes:

> who can ensure that the information makes sense.

Also, for those of us subject to academia's publish-or-perish ethos
(ha!), an internet draft is also easier to justify to the bean counters.

> Obviously, this can also be a disadvantage, depending on the editor,
> but I rather trust Toke.

Thanks ;)

-Toke